The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

What are our baseline assumptions? Do we take the owners at their word that they're losing money and that the players are overpaid by about $700 million? For their part, they say they've provided certified accounting stattements and tax records to the players -- so there's at least some semblance of an open book. That doesn't make it impossible to hide things, but I'm more inclined to believe statemens that are backed up by data.

So let's go with a premise that the next agreement needs to bring down player costs by about a third. The solution needs to do three things:

1. Get them out of the mess they're in currently.
2. Implement a system where they can't get right back into the same mess.
3. Fix inequities created by differences in market size and owner financial resources.

The answer to the third point is easy -- increased revenue sharing. For their part, the league has said that they're addressing revenue sharing separately but in parallel to the CBA discussions.

The answer to #1 is principally salary rollbacks.

Finally, the answer to #2 is primarily dealing with long-term guaranteed contracts. It's not guys like Kobe Bryant -- earning $25 million but also having an MVP-caliber season -- who are the problem. It's the guys like Eddy Curry, who are raking in eight figures for almost zero production. The Knicks would waive him in a hot second if they can escape paying his salary. And I'm not sure fans should be made to continue subsidizing him with their ticket & jersey purchases while he languishes on the bench.

So here's a "tough love" proposal:

*. A salary rollback. The owners will want 33%, the players 0%, but let's compromise at 20%. The rollback will be progessive, so that minimum-salary guys aren't touched at all, and the max salary guys take the greatest hit -- but the overall reduction is 20%.
* The salary cap is based on net revenues rather than gross revenues. The inclusion/exclusions and the percentage split needs to be figured out, to ensure a correct revenue split.
* Contracts can be guaranteed for two years, plus the "following" year (on January 10). A new contract is guaranteed for two years. The third year becomes guaranteed on Jan 10 of the second year. The fourth year becomes guaranteed on January 10 of the third year, etc.
* All minimum-salary contracts are fully guaranteed. Protect the guys whose entire career might be just a couple seasons.
* Max salaries stay where they are, but they become just that -- the maximum. No more exceeding the maximum via raises.
* Teams retain Bird rights, but sign-and-trade goes away. It's like someone having a credit card that allows them to make purchses they can't afford, and having a heart attack when the credit card bill arrives.
* Contracts are limited to five years. The mid-level exception is limited to three. The bi-annual goes away.
* Non-simultaneous trades go away (and with them, trade exceptions).
* A franchise tag is available, which can only be used on one player at a time, can't be used on the same player more than twice, and when applied, constitutes a one-year contract at the maximum salary.
* A revenue sharing system is devised that equalizes teams based on market size and owner wealth, but rewards well-run and financially successful teams. This system takes the place of the luxury tax, which is eliminated.
* Oh, and finally, sportswriters get 10%. We'll ask for 10% of the gross, but we'll settle for 10% of the net.

More From Coon

Will there be a lockout?

With me it's not whether we'll have a lockout, it's how much of the season we'll lose.

In 2005 they came to a quick agreement, but the two sides weren't very far apart. This year they want to make a fundamental change to the economics of the league. It'll be a huge pill for the players to swallow, and they won't do it without a tough fight. It'll be worse than 1998 -- and the 1998 lockout lasted until January 1999.

When will the lockout end?

I think it'll last until at least November 15, when the players miss their first paychecks. No reason for the owners to start serious horse trading until the players start to hurt from missing income.

The Lockout & the Raptors

After I saw the box score tonight I got this sick feeling that we won't see the Raptors play for a long time. Stupid owners, stupid players, just make a freaking deal. Man I hate unions. I have a feeling we're going to hear about some player discontent too once all of this is done. I wonder who the next Hedo will be.....

I hear you friend but keep this in mind though: The NBA PA only has enough money to pay the players for less than a month. These guys live lavish lifestyles. Cut the money pipeline off and you'll see them blinking 100 times per minute. I think the worst case scenario is half a season of work stoppage. Especially if the NBA convinces FIBA to close the doors to their guys.

No Raptors summer league team this year...

In two more signs that the NBA is gearing up for a lockout starting July 1, the league has scrubbed its annual Las Vegas summer league and has also scuttled its annual summer internship program, according to league sources.

The Las Vegas summer league normally starts around July 9, with upwards of 20 teams, including the Knicks, sending little-used veteran players and rookies to compete over a 10-day period.

Also, the NBA usually hires about 30 college students to participate in a 10-week internship program in the league's offices in New York and at the league's entertainment division in Secaucus, N.J.

In preparing for a lockout, the NBA is also not sending any teams abroad for training camp, and did not schedule any preseason games in Europe for this fall.

Owners and players have not held formal negotiations since mid-February, but are expected to resume talks this month. The collective bargaining agreement expires June 30.-Mitch Lawrence

Book it

At 32, guard Maurice Evans is Washingtonís oldest player. But heís putting his wisdom to use in the NBA in more ways than just helping the young Wizards.

Evans is a vice president of the NBA Players Association. The unionís nine-player executive board, headed by president Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers, is working with union executive director Billy Hunter to try to secure a new collective bargaining agreement after the current one expires June 30.

Technically, Evans says there will be a lockout this summer since he doesnít see any way the sides can bridge their wide gap by the start of July. Owners want to drastically cut salaries while the players are in favor of the status quo.

Evans, though, is hoping an agreement can be reached sometime during the summer and no games will be lost, unlike when the season was reduced to 50 games due to a 1998-99 lockout. With players just three months away from likely being locked out, Evans talked to HoopsHype about the current state of affairs

Could you provide an update on collective bargaining following the meeting between the sides in February during All-Star Weekend?

Maurice Evans: Weíre just waiting until the season is pretty much over because we wonít have a chance to all meet again until the NBA Finals are over with (in mid-June). Iím sure we wonít get a deal done by July 1. Therefore, it technically will be a lockout. Hopefully, weíre going to solve those issues before the season starts again.

So itís pretty much understood that no way will a deal get done by July 1?

ME: Because weíve had a number of meetings starting over a year ago, almost two years out, and we still havenít been able to really come to any significant negotiations. Therefore, I know itís going to go into the summer.

To clarify, youíre saying a lockout is pretty certain July 1?

ME: Yeah, but Iím hoping itís not a true lockout, meaning that people will miss checks and miss games more less for the fans. Because weíve got too much momentum going right now to (miss time next season).

Raptors players will get pay day overseas? No so fast...

Tim, it all comes down to what FIBA wants to do.

Thereís no such clarity when it comes to the likes of Bryant, Nowitzki and Jennings, because all three would remain under contract to their current NBA employers during a lockout. That reality has spawned the widespread belief that the sportís international governing body (FIBA) -- presumably under pressure from David Stern -- would block any player contracted to an NBA team from playing elsewhere, since Stern has staunchly supported the participation of NBA players in FIBAís international tournaments for the past two decades despite the frequent protestations of his owners.

Nowitzki himself sounds pessimistic about securing the freedom to sample the ball in Greece or his native Germany if the 2011-12 season doesnít start on time, as covered in this cyberspace earlier this month.

Sources close to the situation, however, say that the NBA Players Association is quietly convinced that such pessimism is misplaced and that its players actually canít be blocked from playing overseas during a lockout.

The union, according to one source, believes that NBA teams ultimately will not be able to legally enforce contracts during an NBA shutdown, whether itís short or long, which would theoretically clear the way for the Lakersí and Mavericksí worst nightmare.

Yet Iíve also been strongly advised that the union anticipates having to caution its constituents with two very strong warnings about playing elsewhere during a lockout in the event that labor negotiations drag into the fall and the NBA finds itself unexpectedly powerless to prevent vets from moonlighting abroad:

1. The union will be telling its players that they risk forfeiting any guaranteed money left on their NBA contracts if they suffer serious injury overseas. Bryant, for example, is owed $83.5 million over the next three seasons. Nowitzki is currently in the first season of a new four-year, $80 million deal. The Lakers and Mavericks would almost certainly have the ability to void those deals if Bryant or Nowitzki suffered some sort of catastrophic injury in an overseas gym. And you have to believe -- drastic as the notion of cutting ties with franchise icons sounds in those examples -- that the threat of getting hurt and invalidating a guaranteed contract will deter plenty of people.

2. The union, Iím told, is also realistic about the overseas market and knows that only a limited numbers of players can reasonably expect decent offers. There are likewise very few teams, even in Europeís biggest leagues, with the budget to come anywhere close to NBA money, which is why we never saw the once-feared exodus of NBA players after Josh Childress left for Greece in the summer of 2008 for two seasons with Olympiacos. So no one in the players' association, even if its legal read proves correct, is prepared to suggest that Europe will be a legitimate option for more than a handful of locked-out NBAers.

What does this mean for the NDBL? There may have been some mentions of this somewhere, but I probably ignored it. As far as I know, the NDBL players are not in the same union, because they have very different rules governing them.

The players get 6 cheques a year starting on the 15th of November. Every missed cheque is a loss of 17% of their salary. Come December 15th and they have missed 1/3 a year salary, things will get done very quickly and it will probably be worse than they could have agreed to a year ago.

The players have 0 leverage in this dispute - none, zilch, nada. When owners are no longer losing money because operations are shut down, they can continue to wait it out until they get a deal that doesn't have over half the team losing money each season.

Unfortunately that rational and sound fact will not dawn on the players until December 15th at the earliest.

Their view is that guys shouldn't be forced to do anything. Those old guys can do what most old guys do who don't want to give it up, move to China. Brandon Jennings should have never been forced to go overseas to be a pro when he wanted to be a pro.

If a guy is ready and willing he should be allowed to turn pro. Laws put in place which take rights away from people to "protect" them are never really put in place to protect them, they're put in place to serve other purposes. The age limit did nothing to help the NBA. The NBA is getting those kids no matter what. That rule was all about the NCAA losing out on marketable stars who were going to the NBA young.

Their view is that guys shouldn't be forced to do anything. Those old guys can do what most old guys do who don't want to give it up, move to China. Brandon Jennings should have never been forced to go overseas to be a pro when he wanted to be a pro.

If a guy is ready and willing he should be allowed to turn pro. Laws put in place which take rights away from people to "protect" them are never really put in place to protect them, they're put in place to serve other purposes. The age limit did nothing to help the NBA. The NBA is getting those kids no matter what. That rule was all about the NCAA losing out on marketable stars who were going to the NBA young.

WHile I understand their argument, I, for one, would love to see the age limit go up to 20. Nothing is stopping these guys from playing professionally, even in North America. There is no age limit in the NDBL. In fact, one guy who was drafted last year went straight from high school to the NDBL for a year and then into the draft.

The reason I'd like to see the age limit raised is because it simply means a better product on the court. Fans don't pay all that money to see players go through growing pains. I'd like to see even slightly more finished products enter the league. I like DeRozan, but I'd have loved to see him stay another year at USC and come into the league more polished. Too many guys come into the league and still are learning the game. Raising the age limit would simply make for a better game.

Tim, one year of college and out is still leading to watching young guys struggle on the court. This is all about the NCAA and has nothing to do with the NBA. If the NBA was truely concerned about development and the players having a backup plan they would mandate that a player can't enter the draft until he graduates college or reaches the age of 23.

Tim, one year of college and out is still leading to watching young guys struggle on the court. This is all about the NCAA and has nothing to do with the NBA. If the NBA was truely concerned about development and the players having a backup plan they would mandate that a player can't enter the draft until he graduates college or reaches the age of 23.

And most guys who go to the NDBL are never seen again.

I agree that 1 year does very little, which is why I'd like to see at least two years. It's really hard to come out of college polished after less than 2 years. I don't care WHY they do it, I just would like to see them do it.

As for the NDBL, the reason most players who go into the NDBL are never seen again has nothing to do with the age limit. If Jennings had gone into the NDBL, which was an option, instead of Europe, he still would have been a top 15 pick.

Speaking of the NDBL, I'd love to see them utilize it more. If it means some guys who don't want to go to college going there instead, then so be it. I'd also like to see all NBA teams own their own NDBL team. It would mean they would be more likely to send players down there for extended periods, since they'd still have control over their development. Sending Alibi back and forth was a little ridiculous. If they had guys on their own NDBL team that could work with Alibi and develop him, then it allow NBA teams to focus on more things iike, you know, trying to win.

It would suck to be without basketball but take our high draft pick this year, play a 40 game season next year leaving us little time to improve and head right back to the head of the ping pong class for another year. Not my most intelligent post but this is all depressing

Their view is that guys shouldn't be forced to do anything. Those old guys can do what most old guys do who don't want to give it up, move to China. Brandon Jennings should have never been forced to go overseas to be a pro when he wanted to be a pro.

If a guy is ready and willing he should be allowed to turn pro. Laws put in place which take rights away from people to "protect" them are never really put in place to protect them, they're put in place to serve other purposes. The age limit did nothing to help the NBA. The NBA is getting those kids no matter what. That rule was all about the NCAA losing out on marketable stars who were going to the NBA young.

I'm surprised you feel that way. If you feel some players aren't ready after a year of NCAA (of where ever) imagine if they didn't play that year. For every LBJ there's 2 Kwame Browns. You could say that Kwame never amounted to anything, but then again teams prob wouldn't have drafted him #1 after watching another year.

Most kids out of high school are RAW, and more and more teams start drafting out of potential. It slows the game down. In my brain that's a fact.

It would suck to be without basketball but take our high draft pick this year, play a 40 game season next year leaving us little time to improve and head right back to the head of the ping pong class for another year. Not my most intelligent post but this is all depressing

Next year's draft is being pegged as ultra ultra deep. Depressing still, I know.

I'm surprised you feel that way. If you feel some players aren't ready after a year of NCAA (of where ever) imagine if they didn't play that year.

Employee, that's why there's D-league.

Employee wrote:

For every LBJ there's 2 Kwame Browns. You could say that Kwame never amounted to anything, but then again teams prob wouldn't have drafted him #1 after watching another year.

Most kids out of high school are RAW, and more and more teams start drafting out of potential. It slows the game down. In my brain that's a fact.

It's the team's choice to take risks. There's no one to blame but the team. That's not a young player issue, that's a team management issue. Drafting young guys does not slow the game down. If they're not ready to hit the floor they typically don't. If they're not ready for extended minutes they typically don't. Teams taking guys with on year of college are still take nearly the same amount of risk.

DeRozan was a huge risk based on potential. He stunk, was a total disappointment, for most of his one and only season of college. He got hot in the second half and impressed enough that Colangelo gave him a chance. It was an excellent choice but a risky choice.